Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> AUGUST 22, 2018 <br /> Mr. Bonvie asked if Concom requested they would rather the dock be closer to the lot line, <br /> effect less of the wetlands, and therefore were concerned about the 25 ft. in this instance. <br /> Mr. Borselli said; yes. He said if he obtains a Special Permit,he would proceed to Chapter <br /> 91 application, and there would be a question as to why it's not 25 ft. off the property. It's <br /> routine if possible to get a letter of no objection from the neighbor, and it's obvious he <br /> wouldn't get the letter if it's not feasible. Mr. Borselli read the 310 CMR 9.36 paragraph 2 <br /> into the record. He said the DEP implements these regulations by requiring the placement <br /> to be 25 ft. away from abutting properties. If an abutter won't sign a letter of no objection, <br /> it doesn't affect the abutter veto power a dock. There's facts that have to be established <br /> justifying not providing the 25 ft. setback. <br /> Mr. Mendoza asked Mr. Borselli what the procedure was for applying to DEP, and how <br /> the abutters are notified if someone is getting close to their property line. Was this abutter <br /> aware of this when going through the process with DEP and Conservation or when it came <br /> to the Zoning Board of Appeals. <br /> Mr. Borselli said that abutters are notified via certified mail of the Conservation hearing <br /> and regular mail for the ZBA hearing. The abutters were clearly aware of this case because <br /> they commented on it. The Chapter 91 rules and regulations are advertisements in the local <br /> newspaper. If the abutter had no knowledge of any of the process when the application was <br /> applied with at DEP, and if the dock is proposed to be less than 25 ft. from her boundary, <br /> Mr. Boselli said that be needs to provide DEP with a letter that states she has no objection. <br /> If she has an objection,and she won't sign the letter of no objection,she has to give specific <br /> navigational justification to it being less than 25 ft. and there's no merit to that. It's not <br /> feasible to provide justification because it's a vacant lot that doesn't even qualify for a dock <br /> today, it oppose a dock that is less than 25 ft. to be placed there to satisfy sensitive <br /> environmental requirements of the Conservation Commission. An approval order of <br /> conditions was submitted with the ZBA application. <br /> Chairman Furbush was concerned that they did not receive specific issues from <br /> Conservation stating they communicated to the applicant that the closest proximity allowed <br /> is ]oft. <br /> Mr. Bonvie asked Mr. Borselli if he depicted 25 ft. from the lot line on the plan, and <br /> Conservation told him to change it to 10 ft., because of the natural resources. Mr. Bonvie <br /> said he doesn't have a problem because more importantly Conservation approved it, and <br /> also the fact with the vacant lot being next door,there is plenty of room. He would like to <br /> hear from the audience. <br /> Mr. Borselli said yes. The pier location was revised on June 7, 2018 from 25 ft. to 10 ft. <br /> The Board had a discussion and would like Conservation to give the Board specific <br /> comments for these types of hearings. <br /> 6 <br />